The thing is changing stories without their permission doesn't constitute 95 million. Practically PP doesn't want to pay a penny for this venture and wants abc to fit the bill for everything that is ridiculous.

Reading the whole the document I'm not seeing anything that amounts to the judgement they're asking for. 100 million plus an extension of the licensing agreement plus the deferment of fees till god knows when

The thing is changing stories without their permission doesn't constitute 95 million. Practically PP doesn't want to pay a penny for this venture and wants abc to fit the bill for everything that is ridiculous.

I don't think they get that much either, but it's a starting point for settlement negotiations.

I don't think they get that much either, but it's a starting point for settlement negotiations.

Yeah, I don't know why people are fixating on the amount. That's how lawsuits work: you ask for the moon and the stars then let yourself get talked down.

Yeah, I don't know why people are fixating on the amount. That's how lawsuits work: you ask for the moon and the stars then let yourself get talked down.

True. Corporate Law 101. Heck even in divorce settlements these days, this is an oft used tactic.

The thing is changing stories without their permission doesn't constitute 95 million. Practically PP doesn't want to pay a penny for this venture and wants abc to fit the bill for everything that is ridiculous.

Don't cases like this usually aim for too much money? They don't expect to get that much (that's going from my very limited knowledge on such subjects) but they always overshoot.

As for the comment about Crystal Chappell sustaining a web show... Vee said it best. Besides she has what, how many episodes a year (I can't be bothered to look) and it looks AWFUL.

Yeah, I don't know why people are fixating on the amount. That's how lawsuits work: you ask for the moon and the stars then let yourself get talked down.

Oh I shoulda read this whole thread first.

Venice is made for $25, some cigarettes and a 40 of Grey Goose.

Venice is made for $25, some cigarettes and a 40 of Grey Goose.

Wow. A season of Venice or a Saturday night with SFK. The choice is yours.

All of this over sh*tty Starr, drab ass John, and rapist Todd. *sighs*

PP is stupid. I've said this before and I'll say it again--for every Todd there was a Brad Vernon. For every Starr there was a young ingenue character with ties to the Buchanan clan. For every John there was an Ed Hall, Rafe Garretson, etc.

OLTL had 40 years of history and characters to pull from instead of putting everything on these three characters. They are easily replaceable and were worn about by the time of the original finale.

PP needs to build a bridge and get over it. Those three actors and their characters weren't that important. Putting too many eggs in one basket. . . .

I hope that we will now call the time period where the OLTL characters were on GH as " The Megasoap!!!".

All of this over sh*tty Starr, drab ass John, and rapist Todd. *sighs*

PP is stupid. I've said this before and I'll say it again--for every Todd there was a Brad Vernon. For every Starr there was a young ingenue character with ties to the Buchanan clan. For every John there was an Ed Hall, Rafe Garretson, etc.

OLTL had 40 years of history and characters to pull from instead of putting everything on these three characters. They are easily replaceable and were worn about by the time of the original finale.

PP needs to build a bridge and get over it. Those three actors and their characters weren't that important. Putting too many eggs in one basket. . . .

it was way more than those three characters/actors.

But PP not acquiring those actors services is the MAIN reason they're really suing. ABC pulled a fast one and PP is pissed. IMO, it's not that serious. All three characters could've been recast. Cole & Hope could've brought back with Tea's baby. The suit is stupid altogether.

No, the real reason they're suing is because they need money.

That said, why should they have been expected to recast Todd Manning, after regaining the popular original actor who played the role for a decade? Why should they have been expected to recast two other key roles? Just because GH had them? Why should they have been expected to let the various alleged liberties with story and character development like the baby, Cole and Hope, etc. slide if they were in violation of the agreement? Everyone has a ready-made answer for that in terms of "how soaps work," which is fine and true, but no one can seem to answer it in terms of the legal agreement. "GH did it and if GH does it that makes it okay" isn't a viable answer in that context. There's fan support and then there's the law. If ABC violated that agreement they were wrong, plain and simple.

Even today we have idiots online whining that Tristan Rogers is a dick to take another job when he's not on contract at GH, just because Ron Carlivati needs him to make the story work on GH. But they're the same people saying OLTL didn't need several lead characters or actors to make a show or a story on that show, just because Ron needed them.

Edited November 15, 201312 yr by Vee

I wonder how these shows will fair at the Emmys. We all know both could merit a Best Show nod and MANY of the actors deserve nominations, but I wonder if they'll get blacklisted. Debbi Morgan, Kelly Missel and so many others did really strong work.

if the actors get blacklisted over something beyond their control, that's low even for the Academy or whoever is in charge with the Emmy process

They'll be blacklisted. That's the way what's left of the industry works now.

IMO either Debbi or Kelley Missal is the Best Actress of the year - or Young Actress or whatever the bullshit title is. Brooke Newton deserves a nod for how Colby Chandler became multifaceted in a very quick timeframe. Jill Larson deserves a shot, so does Eden Riegel, Eric Nelsen, Vincent Irizarry, Darnell. And I thought Erika Slezak and Jerry verDorn did incredible work on OLTL, and that Melissa Archer, Robert Gorrie, Denyse Tontz, and yes, FL and KDP deserve nods as well. Everyone was good, really, except a very few.

They'll be ignored, though. The only way they can't be ignored is if these shows were to somehow return and run again. And stay running.

And AMC was the best "Best Show" in several years. But that will be ignored.

Edited November 15, 201312 yr by Vee